It isn't fair to penalize or conspire against players for using a tactic allowed in the game and not in violation of any house rule.
How so!? [X(]
I mean, that is what PBEMs are all about right? Conspiring, back-stabbing, taunting a secund timah.
In real life, if the Pasha of Turkey spent hundreds of thousands florins and deployed the full-might of his diplomatic assets to tear away an entire nation from another European leader, i.e., black ops "conquesting" of a sort, what would the consequence have been?
If those target nations could not respond with equivalent diplomatic retaliation, they would have responded with military or economic. Moreover, they would have tried to form an alliance to assist them.
Its not gamey to discuss prospective alliances "ganging up" on other nations because they have done something to upset the balance of power or "broken the rules" of international relations. The argument that this is a mid-game issue may be a valid reason to let the house rule for moratoriums on insurrections lie, but it is NOT an argument against an international quorum to form an alliance to punish insurrectors. None of us could foresee that the contemporary historical national assets (read game mechanics) would allow for this sort of abuse of international relations. Now that it has occurred, and there has been an international discussion about it, a majority opinion has been reached: the use of diplomatic assets to invoke insurrections in the minor national posessions of major nations is a breach of the spirit of international law, even if it does technically fall within the boundaries of said law.
